Madras High Court
The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S.Ray Mcdermott Engineering ... on 14 September, 2021
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S. Sivagnanam, Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
T.C.A.No.459 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
T.C.A.No.459 of 2021
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle- 2(2),
Chennai – 600 034. ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Ray McDermott Engineering Services Pvt.Ltd.,
RMZ Millenia Business Park, 6th floor,
Campus 3B, 143, Dr. M.G.R. Road,
Perungudi,
Chennai – 600 096. ... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench Chennai,
dated 30.10.2017 in I.T.A.No.1723/MDS/2017, Assessment Year 2012-13.
For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
Senior Standing Counsel
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.459 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.) We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue.
2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for brevity) is directed against the order dated 30.10.2017 made in I.T.A.No.1723/MDS/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench Chennai (“the Tribunal” for brevity) for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
3.The appellant/Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law:
“1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct and in law in holding that UPS is eligible for higher depreciation at the rate of 60% and not at the rate of 15%?Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.459 of 2021
2)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in holding that the MAT credit should set off against the tax payable for the present year and thereafter on the balance tax only, the surcharge and education cess had to be computed and levied.”
4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the Low Tax Effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit.
5.In the light of the said submissions, the above Tax Case Appeal is dismissed on account of the Low Tax Effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect in this case is above the threshold limit fixed in the said Circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.459 of 2021 on merits. No costs.
(T.S.S., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
14.09.2021
jeni/mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench Chennai
2.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle- 2(2), Chennai – 600 034.
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.459 of 2021 and SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
jeni/mkn T.C.A.No.459 of 2021 14.09.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/